CJ 100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 64: Voting Age, Thurgood Marshall, The Tradition
Prisoners' Rights
The hands off doctrine‐ dominated thinking about correctional law in America during the 19th
century. American courts regarded inmates as “slaves of the state.” Judges believed prisoners
had no rights because they had forfeited them as a result of their crimes, and judges didn't
interfere with the administration of correctional institutions because they didn't want to violate
the principle of separation of power (in other words, the courts didn't want to interfere with the
authority of the executive branch to administer prisons).
During the 1960s and 1970s, the courts moved away from the hands off doctrine and ‐
acknowledged that courts have a duty to resolve constitutional claims of prisoners. The
assertiveness of Black Muslim prisoners in making claims upon the courts and the
activist Warren Court's commitment to protecting the rights of minorities, including
persons accused of crimes and persons convicted of crimes, caused this shift. In
addition, several legal developments also led to the temporary demise of the hands off ‐
doctrine.
In Monroe v. Pape (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that citizens could
bring Section 1983 suitsagainst state officials in federal courts without first exhausting
all state judicial remedies. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which imposes
civil liability on any person who deprives another of constitutional rights, became a
vehicle inmates could use to challenge the constitutionality of the conditions of prison
life. In another significant case, Robinson v. California (1962), the Court extended the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to the states.
Today, the Court recognizes that prisoners do have certain rights. At the same time,
however, the Court holds that prisoners do have fewer rights than free citizens because
taking away rights is a legitimate punishment and because the restriction of rights is
necessary to maintain security in prisons. The current trend is back to the hands off ‐
doctrine, with the Rehnquist Court granting correctional officials considerable discretion
to decide what restrictions should be placed on inmates.
The right to free speech
The First Amendment provides in part that “Congress shall make no law … abridging
the freedom of speech.” Since 1970, the federal and state courts have extended the
right of freedom of speech and expression to inmates, requiring correctional
administrators to justify restrictions on these rights. In Procunier v. Martinez (1974),
prisoners challenged the constitutionality of state regulations covering censorship of
prisoner mail on the grounds that they violated the prisoners' free speech rights. One ‐
rule banned letters containing inmates' criticisms of prison conditions. Striking down the
state regulations as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court set forth two requirements for
future efforts to regulate communications of prisoners. First, restrictions on speech must
be justified as being necessary for maintaining security or some other substantial
governmental interest. Second, the rules can't stop inmate communications any more
than is necessary to protect important governmental interests.
The right to freedom of association
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Another right protected by the First Amendment is freedom of association. In Jones v.
North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union (1977), the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of restrictions on the activities of a prisoner labor union.
The right to freedom of religion
Another First Amendment right upon which much prisoners' litigation has concentrated
is freedom of religion. The Supreme Court has declared that inmates do have the right
to freedom of religion and that prison authorities must provide inmates opportunities to
practice their religious faith.
The right of access to the courts is the most important of all prisoners' rights. Civil
rights suitsfiled under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 have served as the
main way for inmates to enforce their constitutional rights. Victories in such lawsuits
have produced the right to receive assistance from a jailhouse lawyer (an inmate who
provides legal advice to other inmates) and the right to be afforded access to adequate
law libraries.
Rights during prison disciplinary proceedings
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process to all citizens. How much
process are inmates due in disciplinary proceedings? In Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), the
Supreme Court held that when inmates may lose good time, due process demands that
certain procedures be in place so inmates are not arbitrarily deprived of their freedom.
Inmates have
The right to be notified of charges against them before their disciplinary hearings.
The right to call witnesses to testify at their hearings.
The right to assistance in presenting a defense (which doesn't, however, include
the right to an attorney).
The right to a written statement explaining the evidence used in reaching a
disposition.
The right to an impartial decision maker.
The right to equal protection under the law
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” The
most common equal protection lawsuit by inmates claims‐ racial discrimination. Claims
alleging gender based discrimination‐ tend to center on fewer educational and work
opportunities afforded to female as compared to male inmates. Courts have ruled that
facilities, programs, and privileges provided to female inmates must be substantially
equivalent to those provided for male inmates.
The right to privacy
Prisoners have no Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure. Prison officials can monitor prisoners' movements throughout prisons, watch
prisoners in their cells, and conduct warrantless searches inside prisons. In Hudson v.
Palmer (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners have no reasonable expectation
of privacy in their prison cells entitling them to Fourth Amendment protection. The Court
has denied prisoners any rights to privacy because of the need for prison authorities to
have access to cells and prisoners' personal belongings for security reasons.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Dominated thinking about correctional law in america during the 19th. During the 1960s and 1970s, the courts moved away from the hands off doctrine and acknowledged that courts have a duty to resolve constitutional claims of prisoners. The assertiveness of black muslim prisoners in making claims upon the courts and the activist warren court"s commitment to protecting the rights of minorities, including persons accused of crimes and persons convicted of crimes, caused this shift. In addition, several legal developments also led to the temporary demise of the hands off doctrine. In monroe v. pape (1961), the u. s. supreme court ruled that citizens could bring section 1983 suitsagainst state officials in federal courts without first exhausting all state judicial remedies. Section 1983 of the civil rights act of 1871, which imposes civil liability on any person who deprives another of constitutional rights, became a vehicle inmates could use to challenge the constitutionality of the conditions of prison life.
